How good are the live pros at all the math behind tournament poker?

Does the online pros have an edge over live pros or vice versa?

There aren't a whole lot of live pros left that don't play online poker, so this is a pretty loaded quetsion..

Mathwise I doubt there is much difference, there are probably equal proportions of those who "calculate" and those who are "intuitive" about the math. I think experienced live pros have an adavantage over online pros with less live experience in that online pros can be dependent on tools, unused to reading/hiding live "tells" and less comfortable under the lights. Online pros can also be too used to much more dead money than live pros are used to facing.

I think you misunderstood my question. When I say online pros I'm reffering to the players that make their living from online poker. Like the top ranked Pocket5ers.

I know most of the live pros play online as well. But it ain't their main game.

All right, I'll re-answer the question:

In a live game, the advantage the live pros have in tells/etc is offset by the fact the online pros are completely unknown to them.

Online, the live players would, of course, be at a disadvantage losing tells and playing on opposing turf. But the live pro will be much more solid in fundamentals than the dead money the online pro is used to battling.

Both will earn roughly 98% of their career profits off of dead money, so argument still null and void .

Thats the kind of answer I wanted.

Reason I ask is a Pocket5 podcast where Annette_15 answered this question. She claimed that the online pros where much better technically than the avarage live pro. She took Hellmuth's play as an example.

Just wanted your guys view on that

The big problem w/ a lot of online players' views of live pros is that the big online tourneys are generally in the neighborhood of $200-$1000, whereas these are pretty small buy-ins for most live pros. You're going to get a lot fewer really good players in a random $1000 live tournament than you would in a random 200r.

So when online pros go to play live events w/ a similar buy-in to what they are used to, they will run into a lot more bad players than they are used to, and that will skew their view of live players downwards.

Also, with the advent of online training sites and to some extent poker forums, today's online players tend to play like each other and tend to think that there is one correct way to play most poker hands. Live pros grew up more or less separate from each other and developed different styles. Some of the styles appear to be completely wrong to online players.

Some of the live styles do lead to terribly -EV moves, but sometimes there are very close situations that online pros think have only one answer when in fact there are several.

I'd say that live pros, especially live tournament pros, aren't affected by this problem as much as you'd think. Any standard live pro knows how to profile people from the moment they sit down. The clothes you're wearing, whether you're talkative or not, and the way you handle your chips are all things that give off something about how you play and can all be seen before you even play a hand. I'm not saying that live pros can determine all of the specifics of a player by doing this, I'm just saying that live tournament pros have practiced skills to help them adjust to new players that online pros just won't have the experience necessary to use.

As someone that has played a good deal of big buy in live tournaments, and obviously a ton of online tournaments, I would agree with Annette and also give the edge technically on average to the online players. Obviously there are exceptions, and I also still would take the 'best' live players over the 'best' online players (although there are quite a few people who I respect that feel otherwise), but I think her statement is pretty accurate.

I personally find live tournaments 'easier' then the 1k's/100-200r's (these are the tournaments you have to look at, not the sunday millions etc) online because all the extra info you garner being at the table with your opponents. People re-steal/make moves less (again, obv exceptions), so it is easier for a TAG like me to navigate a field without a ton of confrontations.

I also don't see why a good live pro couldn't make the adjustment to become a successful online player, once they deal with losing all their sensory reads. Although PH has a ton of technical holes in his game, I think he for instance could do really well if he spent a good deal of time playing online tournaments. JC made a really good post (or actually a few I think) in a thread about this in General a month or two back, someone should find that link (lazy obv).

I think as a whole, internet players are better, because they are technically better at the game. I made a post kinda like this in the thread in General "Daniel is done".
Basically, even tho the internet pros are technically better, that won't automatically transfer into money. Live pros have poker and life experience more so than the internet players, and that can be just as valuable as technical skill in the poker world. Also, I think online players underestimate 'the read'. They forget that reading ability is not just looking for physical abnormalities, reading can also be considered table feel, intuition, and that 'sixth sense' all the great players seem to hold.

But then again, how do you define "live player". Basically, when talking about live and internet players, it seems to be more of a discussion about feel vs math.
It's a shady area and I think it's too difficult to seperate players into "live" and "online" players, because 1) The player fields are so large, and 2) Many play both.

I found some online players who are just overwhelmed with the simple math involved with live poker:

http://www.pocketfives.com/D97C4F3F-04EB-4...AD45A3424A.aspx

Yup, this definitely describes a lot of newbies to the live game.

Really? I would think there are still a lot of "old-school" types who only play live. I would assume that most if not all of the younger generation of players play both, but not the older generation.

How many players can you name off the top of your head that aren't "affiliates" to a site to begin with *and* don't play online?

I mean... Doyle is one of the few who doesn't play online at all.. Some of the bigger boys, like Chip, Eli, Freddy and such aren't online renoun.. But it's few and far between.

And admit it.. When you stop and have to think about it, it basically proves the point. Who is playing poker, but not playing online poker at all? And do we care if Tuna Lund and Sam Grizzle aren't online savvy anways?

Doyle has his own poker room, and he's defintely played online(though he's never played a sit n go).

And Sam Grizzle does play online aswell.

Doyle plays online, though one of the Dolly's probably types for him.

I didn't say anything about big names, I only said there are probably a lot of older tourney players who don't play online. I was watching a taped episode of a PPT tourney last night and they were talking about the contrasting styles of young players like Scott Fischman to the "old-school" players at the table. I can't even remember their names but these were professional tourney players who are very experienced and probably don't bother with online play (though I could be wrong).

The PPT was Lyle Berman's brainchild of how to get the people supplying the dead money for WPT championships some free TV Time. It was a veritable "who's who" of who is no longer relevant in tournament poker. And players like DN, Lindgren, Forrest, Juanda, and the like carved their way through those fields like a hot knife through butter.

Tom McEvoy won one of those suckers fer chrissakes...

/rant off.

I think you will find that the older players that are retiring and moving away from Vegas/ Commerce/ AC etc, are finding and enjoying online poker out of necessity in droves.

But it might be offset by the older folks who retire *to* Jersey/Vegas/SoCal just to be near live poker and casinos in general, so who knows.